Spens (1938)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Membership, Analysis, Preface, Introduction
Chapter 1 Development of the secondary curriculum
Chapter 2 The present position
Chapter 3 Physical and mental development of 11-16 year olds
Chapter 4 The curriculum of the grammar school
Chapter 5 Scripture
Chapter 6 English, classics, mathematics, general science
Chapter 7 The School Certificate Examination
Chapter 8 Technical schools
Chapter 9 Administrative problems
Chapter 10 Welsh problems
Chapter 11 Conclusions and recommendations
Appendix I List of witnesses
Appendix II Liberal education (Young)
Appendix III Secondary curriculum (Kandel)
Appendix IV Faculty psychology (Burt)
Appendix V Transfer of training (Hamley)
Appendix VI Curricula in the Dominions (Clarke)
Index

London: HM Stationery Office

Chapter 5 Scripture
[pages 206 - 217]

We believe that there is a wide and genuine recognition of the value and importance of religious instruction and the teaching of Scripture in schools, and that the time is favourable for a fresh consideration of the place that they should occupy in the education of boys and girls of secondary school age. The subject has been hitherto admittedly difficult and sometimes controversial. No kind of religious instruction can fail to raise issues relating to the meaning of life and to human destiny which in the world outside the school are the subject of profound disagreement. The problem of religious education in the secondary school is largely the problem of finding an approach to the subject which can enlist the disinterested enthusiasm and give scope to the professional ability of teachers who may differ widely in their personal convictions. We believe that the present temper of public opinion is such that the educational issues involved in the teaching of Scripture may be faced fairly on their own merits, and that they are no longer obscured by past controversy. The fact that during recent years it has been found possible in so many parts of the country to use agreed syllabuses of religious instruction in public elementary schools provided by local education authorities is one of many signs which encourage us to hope that a problem which has been solved with a considerable measure of success in the primary school may be found equally capable of solution in the later stages of school life.

There is ample evidence that the subject is attracting greater attention both inside and outside the teaching profession. As one instance of this may be quoted the inception of the Association of Teachers of Religious Knowledge, a spontaneous growth from within the teaching profession, which has now been merged in the Institute of Christian Education. This Institute, founded in 1935, aims at the promotion of Christian education at home and overseas, and collects and distributes information on all matters dealing with the teaching of Scripture. We have noted that a conference on the provision of improved opportunities for teachers to equip themselves for giving religious instruction, which met at the Board of Education in 1933-4 under the Chairmanship of Lord Halifax, then President of the Board, reported that 'as regards secondary schools, the Conference have little doubt that ... increasing interest in religious instruction is being shown by Local Education Authorities, by Governing Bodies and by the teachers themselves and that as a result the general level of teaching is being raised.' (1) With that opinion we are in agreement and we assume that implied in the 'increasing interest' is a belief - which we certainly share - that if religious instruction of any kind is to have a place in the curriculum it should be as well taught and effectively planned as any other branch of study. We feel indeed that religious education can only be justified as a regular part of the education of older boys and girls if at the end of the course they feel that it has included some serious study to which their teachers have given not less thought and skill than to their other studies, and that some part, at least, of the course has demanded that degree of concentration and awakened that interest which makes even immature minds aware that time has been spent to good purpose.

It is true that, though the number of secondary schools making no provision at all for religious instruction is small, there is a considerable number in which the subject is not included in the timetable of the higher forms. In some of the latter religious instruction is discontinued in the sixth form only; in others it is discontinued in the year in which the School Certificate examination is taken, or even earlier. It is true, too, that we have been informed that a large number of teachers have shown in recent years unwillingness to teach Scripture. Their disinclination to take part in religious instruction does not, however, necessarily mean that they believe this instruction to be without value. It may indicate, not so much that they are indifferent to this side of education, as that they are uncertain about both its purpose and methodology, and that they are naturally reluctant to teach a subject to which they do not feel that they are qualified to do justice. We do not think, therefore, that this fact should be interpreted as disproving that growing interest in the subject as to which we have already expressed our opinion. Nor does the discontinuance of religious instruction when the Certificate examination is approaching necessarily argue indifference or hostility to the subject. Scripture is not the only subject to be sacrificed in the fourth and fifth years of the school course to the real or supposed pressure of the examination system. We find no reason to believe that there is any large body of opinion definitely favourable to an entirely secular secondary education. The fact that the number of boys and girls withdrawn from religious instruction is a small minority does not point in that direction. On the contrary the present position seems to indicate that the great majority of parents prefer, no doubt for many different reasons, that their children should continue to receive some kind of religious instruction during their post-primary education.

It is often maintained that the study of the Bible should have a place in the curriculum for its literary value alone. We do not wish to underestimate that value. The English Bible is one of the glories of the literary heritage bequeathed to the English-speaking peoples. For that reason there is much to be said in favour of the inclusion of portions of the Bible in the syllabus of English literature. But it is also true that no boy or girl can be counted as properly educated unless he or she has been made aware of the fact of the existence of a religious interpretation of life. The traditional form which that interpretation has taken in this country is Christian, and the principal justification for giving a place in the curriculum to the study of the Scriptures is that the Bible is the classic book of Christianity and forms the basis of the structure of Christian faith and worship. The content of the Bible has, therefore, inevitably its own dignity and associations. It can neither be treated merely as a part of English literature, nor can it be merged in the general study of history, though its meaning is, in the first instance at least, historically conditioned.

There are, therefore, obvious reasons why many members of the teaching profession do not and cannot regard the study of the Bible merely as one among a number of classroom subjects. This fact does not, however, in our opinion afford the slightest justification for the idea that the teaching of Scripture cannot be as expert and effective as any other teaching. We hold that the Biblical literature contains a body of perfectly intelligible ideas, which can be systematically presented and studied; and that it is possible for a teacher so to approach that literature and present those ideas that the difficulty of appearing to take sides in traditional controversies may be avoided. Not only is the Bible a unique record of one side of human experience, but its study provides a valuable intellectual discipline and quickens the interest of many young minds.

The approach to the study of Scripture which we have in mind is historical and objective, the temper and the method of the teaching being such that the teacher's primary purpose will have been attained when he or she has made the pupil understand the meaning of the book which is being studied; and by 'meaning' is to be understood the meaning, so far as it can be ascertained, for those who wrote the book and for those for whom it was written. By the word 'objective' we do not mean that teachers of Scripture should confine themselves to literary criticism and the provision of an 'historical' background; nor, certainly, that they should not themselves have a strong sympathy with a religious interpretation of life. It can hardly be disputed that the best teacher is one whose interest in the subject and desire to teach it proceed from religious faith. We recognise, too, that in practice a teacher will often travel beyond the limits which we may have seemed to define, if only in order to answer the questions naturally presented to him by his pupils. But it is one, and in our opinion not the least, advantage of the treatment of the subject which we have indicated, namely, to understand the original meaning of Scripture, that it enables teachers to take a position from which they can most easily and effectively reply to questions raised incidentally by their pupils, as well as explain the historical divergencies in Christian thought, without incurring the suspicion of either insincerity or prejudice - personal or denominational. We hold, too, that Scripture taught with this purpose in view is the best foundation for any other religious education given in the school concurrently or subsequently.

There are three main departments into which Biblical study in schools is likely to fall: the religious ideas and experiences of Israel, of which the record is to be found in the Old Testament, the life and teaching of Jesus Christ, and the beginning of the Christian church. Anyone who wishes to teach the Old Testament intelligently to adolescents, and to ensure their grasp of the meaning of the book which they are reading, must possess more than a superficial knowledge of ancient history and Biblical criticism, and be able to explain to his pupils the moral and religious conditions of the world in which Hebrew religion developed. This applies more particularly to the prophetic literature, but it is true also of the Pentateuch and the historical books. For the teacher of the New Testament a knowledge of Biblical criticism is at least, equally necessary, if only because the central ideas of the New Testament grow from Old Testament roots, and can be understood only in this organic relationship. But the teacher will need more than this. The moral teaching of the New Testament is subordinate to its religious affirmations. Theological conceptions are immediately involved in the explanation of the meaning conveyed by the words of the text to those to whom they were originally addressed, and in the questions which will be asked by intelligent and interested pupils. Teachers will require that particular kind of training and experience which will equip them for meeting those issues, and indeed increase their sense of responsibility for facing them with minds unprejudiced and informed.

It follows that if the study of Scripture is to be approached objectively, some increased professional knowledge is needed by the teacher. We hold that the time is past when the teaching of Scripture could be entrusted to any members of a staff who did not object to undertake it, irrespective of some preparatory training. (2) For the kind of teaching which we have in mind good will and enthusiasm, however necessary, are not enough. Just because the content of that teaching touches life at more points than that of any other subject and is so closely related to individual thought and conduct, we hold that form masters and form mistresses provided they desire to do so should take part in a kind of instruction which may mean so much to their pupils. (3) But we are of the opinion that these teachers, unless they have themselves received some special training, would benefit from the advice, or even the direction, of a specialist colleague, and that especially in the higher forms the actual teaching might with advantage be entrusted to such a specialist. The tendency in secondary schools, so pronounced in the case of other subjects, to make use of the specialist teacher has not on the whole been applied to Scripture, and we believe that the teaching of the Bible has suffered in consequence. Nor can we accept the assumption, still not uncommon, that the teaching of Scripture must necessarily form part of the duties of a head master or head mistress who may, or may not, have special interest in the subject. That idea is, partly perhaps, a heritage of the time when head masters of grammar schools were frequently in Holy Orders and had therefore received a professional training. If, however, Scripture is to be taught as a subject valuable for its own interest and intellectual discipline it requires, to the same extent as any other subject of primary importance, the direction of a specialist teacher.

There is reason indeed to believe that the practice of entrusting the teaching of Scripture to those who have no particular qualifications - and sometimes no desire - for the work has led in many cases, not only to the results which might be expected in the case of any subject treated thus casually, but to others equally unfortunate which arise from the character of this particular study and the teaching traditionally associated with it. We have grave doubts whether in secondary schools taken as a whole the syllabuses of Scripture are as well adapted as those of other subjects to provide coordinated and progressive instruction. It is often asserted that many boys and girls leave their secondary schools without even an elementary knowledge of the Bible, and with little or no respect for the religious instruction which they have received. There may be more than one reason for this; but in part, at least, it may be due to the fact that they have failed to find in those who have instructed them a knowledge of the subject comparable with that possessed by those who have directed the rest of their work. It is likely, too, that the teacher who is dubious of his own capacity to do justice to the subject through lack of knowledge is often the teacher who is most ready to permit the Scripture lesson to be nothing more than an opportunity for ethical exhortation, or even for general discussion. There is sometimes a real need for lessons allocated in the timetable to Scripture to be protected against the intrusion of teaching and discussion which would be at least equally relevant to the matter of other lessons.

However desirable or even necessary these may be, it is unfortunate that a recognised time cannot be provided for them inside school hours without causing any curtailment of the Scripture lesson. (4)

We therefore advocate the employment of a specialist teacher of Scripture in every school in which such an appointment can be justified by the number of pupils, and we are encouraged to make this recommendation by what we have been told of the experience of schools in which this arrangement has been tried. We are not advocating that the specialist teacher shall necessarily give the whole of the teaching of Scripture throughout a school. Other members of the staff who are willing to take part in the work may well do so, and we have been assured that the presence of a specialist on the staff does often lead to his or her non-specialist colleagues taking a keener and more intelligent interest in the teaching of the Bible. The function of the specialist is rather to act as the focus for the technical aspects of the subjects, to advise on syllabuses and to represent the academic seriousness of the study of Scripture. In larger schools we envisage the specialist teacher as responsible for part of the Scripture teaching in each block, more particularly in the higher blocks, and, where the work of the school is organised in departments, as holding the same status as other heads of departments. On the other hand we regard it as important that teachers primarily responsible for organising the study of Scripture in a school should not be specialists in the narrow sense that their own teaching has been confined to that subject, or that they have pursued no course of study other than theological at the university. They are all the more likely to be recognised as effective exponents of their own subject if they have had the opportunity to prove themselves proficient in other kinds of teaching.

We recognise that in a number of small schools the provision of a specialist teacher may be difficult. We hope that even in these schools it may often be found possible to arrange for some member of the regular staff, who has the necessary inclination, to take some specialist course of preparation for teaching Scripture. In some cases the possession of a qualification for teaching Scripture as a second subject could be taken into consideration when appointments are made to the staff. In some areas, too, it may be found practicable and desirable for a visiting specialist teacher to be responsible for the Scripture of a group of grammar schools. In exceptional cases this may be the right course to meet what is admittedly a difficulty. But Scripture, like any other subject, is commonly at a disadvantage when it is not taught by someone who is a regular member of the staff and therefore in a position to relate it to the work of the school as a whole. It is, moreover, inevitably associated with other influences bearing upon the thought and conduct of boys and girls; and for this reason alone we should prefer that the responsibility for its direction should not rest on anyone who is not in the fullest sense a member of the school society.

It will be one important function of the specialist teacher to take an active interest in the selection of the books which are used in the classroom, for private reading and for reference. There has been some improvement in recent years, but it is still too often the case that the format and printing of books used in the Scripture lesson compare unfavourably with those of books which boys and girls are obliged or encouraged to read in connection with other literary subjects. (5) The specialist teacher should also be in a position to secure the provision in the school library of a sufficient number of books bearing on the subject which are suitable for the use of both staff and pupils.

There remains the question how to secure a supply of teachers adequately prepared to teach Scripture in the historical and objective manner which we have advocated. The number of those teachers who in reading for a university degree have devoted one or two years to the study of Biblical and immediately kindred subjects, and who have subsequently passed an examination in those subjects, is likely to be far from sufficient to meet the demand. We regard it of great importance that every possible facility may be provided whereby those who have already proved that they are capable teachers of other subjects may qualify themselves by special preparation to undertake the teaching of Scripture. It is, perhaps, to be expected that the number of women teachers who wish so to qualify themselves will be greater than the number of men if only because for men there is the Christian ministry. We do not believe, however, that there need be any shortage of men able to teach Scripture as intelligently and systematically as they teach other subjects, provided that every facility is given to those who wish to obtain the necessary qualifications. In some cases it may be possible to grant leave of absence to a teacher to enable him or her to devote a period of full time study in preparation for the BD degree and other diplomas in theology provided by certain universities, and for the Archbishop's Diploma.

Furthermore, all reasonable facilities should be afforded to teachers who desire to attend the extramural courses of lectures in divinity which are now organised by various universities. As regards vacation courses in divinity, it is desirable that grants in aid should be awarded by local education authorities to defray the whole of the travelling expenses of teachers and a portion, at least, of the fees. We are entirely in accord with that section of the Report of the Conference on Religious Education (1934), to which reference has already been made, in which it is stated that 'The Conference believe that there is at the present time a strong desire among very many teachers already engaged in the schools for opportunities for further study which would be of value to them in the teaching of Scripture. They wish to draw the attention of the Board of Education, local education authorities, teachers' associations and voluntary bodies, to the great opportunities which this presents, and to the valuable results which have been secured from such courses.' (6)

As a result of that important conference, there has been a very considerable increase in the provision of vacation courses and other academic courses in divinity, especially in cases where the teachers' organisations have collaborated with the local education authorities and with various voluntary associations in organising suitable lectures and tutorial classes.

The question whether Scripture can and should be examined is one upon which there is a wide diversity of opinion - not least among those who are engaged in teaching it. In so far as the Bible is read for its literary qualities, we believe that the process is directed to a result which cannot be tested by formal examination. It is sufficient to refer to what we say elsewhere in this Report about the examination of English literature as a separate subject. (7) On the other hand, when the teaching of Scripture is historical and objective a written examination may afford a proper test of whether a candidate has acquired an adequate knowledge of the content of what has been read. Moreover, some experienced teachers hold the view that, so long as external examinations are of their present importance. Scripture will be regarded as ranking below other subjects unless it is retained as a subject in these examinations and given the same value as other subjects. We feel bound to attach weight to these opinions, but many of us hold that the unique value of the subject is enhanced when it is entirely freed from examination, and the idea of direct or indirect gain or advantage is eliminated. We think that, since the approach to the subject is made by teachers of different experience and different attitudes, the schools should be left free to decide whether the subject should be examined or not. There are cases in which an examination in Scripture may be a valuable test of effective and sympathetic teaching which would be appreciated both by the teacher and the taught, and there are others in which the teachers would feel trammelled by the thought of any examination and the value of their teaching would thereby be lessened. We therefore advocate complete freedom. (8)

Whether the subject in all its aspects be examinable or not, we attach great importance to extending an existing practice whereby Scripture takes its place with the other subjects and activities of the curriculum as a subject for inspection. (9) This opinion assumes that in any system of inspection there will be inspectors sympathetic to the study of the Bible, and recognised as competent to appraise both the content of the lessons and the methods of instruction.

We believe, then, that Scripture, taught with the purpose of securing an accurate understanding of the original and historical meaning of the books which are read, is normally the soundest basis for other religious education in the secondary school. That is not to imply that it is all the religious education which a child requires, or which a school may properly undertake. We realise that there are teachers who believe that religious education, particularly as given to boys and girls who will shortly be leaving school, should deal more directly with the application of Christian principles to the problems - personal and public - with which they will be confronted in adult life. There are others who would probably maintain that the primary purpose of teaching the sacred literature of Christianity is to attach some significance to the idea of the Christian faith - meaning by that phrase the belief that the person and teaching of Christ give an interpretation of life, and the will to act on the assumption that that interpretation is the true one. Unless they can feel that they may continually and avowedly try to explain that interpretation and fortify that will, they may prefer to take no part in teaching Scripture. We recognise, therefore, that some head masters and head mistresses will wish to amplify Scripture lessons of the kind which we have indicated with religious education of a more general kind, the content of which is not, and cannot from its nature be, examinable, and which no more than Scripture teaching can be obligatory. There is no need to emphasise how influential this side of religious education may be in its effect not only on the growth of individual character but on the whole life of a school.

It will be a natural development if religious instruction is often so directed as to add meaning to whatever form of school worship is customary in the school, and if the latter in turn brings fresh interest to the work in the classroom. In any school which provides for daily prayers of a Christian character, with, as is often the case, a lection [reading] from the Bible, it is reasonable for those who teach the Bible to make it clear that the religion contained in the New Testament challenges us to faith and worship; and that school prayers are no mere formality, nor a traditional method of promoting corporate spirit, but an acceptance of that challenge. To keep school prayers and religious instruction in entirely separate compartments is to detract from the value of both.

If this objective teaching of Scripture is to be as effective as the other instruction given in the secondary school, we believe that it must be continuous throughout the course. We therefore advocate that provision should be made for this side of a boy's or girl's education in every form, and that it should not be discontinued on account of the pressure of the School Certificate or any other examination. The time to be allotted to religious education as a whole will depend in part upon whether a school provides only for the teaching of Scripture, or also for religious education of the more general kind. If there is any kind of religious education outside the regular course of Scripture, and if the syllabus of the latter covers more than the bare minimum necessary to secure for it the respect paid to other subjects, the time required can hardly be less than the equivalent of two periods a week.

This does not imply that the time given to different aspects of the work should necessarily be distributed in the same manner at every stage of the course. The distribution of time in the two years preceding the Certificate examination is likely to be determined by the fact that a school does, or does not, present candidates in Scripture for that examination, and, in the former case, by the character of the syllabus. It will be agreed, both by those who approve and by those who disapprove of the external examination of Scripture, that, if it is to rank with other subjects in the scheme of examination, it must represent a comparable standard of achievement and an adequate body of knowledge. This is equally desirable whether the course leading to the examination is the final course of Scripture to be taken in the school, or whether, as we hope will be increasingly common, the course is preliminary to further Biblical study in the sixth form. We believe that it should not be impossible to devise a syllabus of Scripture for examination at the stage of the School Certificate which should be adequate for the purpose of that examination, and yet would not require in the two years preceding the examination more than some two thirds of the time which we have suggested may be reasonably assigned to Scripture and religious education as a whole.

Footnotes

(1) Report of a Conference held at the Board of Education on 30 November 1933 and 20 March 1934 on The provision of improved opportunities for teachers to equip themselves for giving religious instruction (1934).

(2) We have in mind in particular the extramural courses to which we refer later in this chapter.

(3) Much as we desire to see the importance of Scripture teaching enhanced, we regard it as essential that liberty of conscience should be preserved for teachers as well as for parents of pupils.

(4) Opportunity for this is provided in the informal periods suggested in Chapter 4, Section 43, final paragraph.

(5) See Chapter 2 of our Report on Books in Public Elementary Schools (1928), and also recommendation 25 (a) of that Report which runs as follows: 'We suggest that one or more well printed copies of the Bible in large and attractive type and form should be included in each school library, and we recommend that every elementary school child who can read sufficiently well should be provided with a copy of one or more portions of the Bible, suitable for study, in a similar type and form.'

(6) Report of a Conference held at the Board of Education on 30 November 1933 and 20 March 1934 on The provision of improved opportunities for teachers to equip themselves for giving religious instruction (1934), p. 4.

(7) See Chapter 4, Section 32; Chapter 6, section on English language and literature.

(8) At the moment there is a marked tendency not to present Scripture as an examination subject, but Wales is a notable exception.

(9) Subject to the existing right of the school to say whether it wishes Scripture to be inspected or not.